View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
27 June 1933

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
LICENSING PROSECUTION
QUESTION
- SURPLUS MILITARY CLOTHING
QUESTION
- CANBERRA ALLOWANCE
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF PEANUTS
TARIFF BOARD REPORTS
- Perfumery, Petroleum Jelly, Toilet Preparations
- Steering Dampers
PARLIAMENTARY ECONOMIES
- Public Service Board’s Report
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
QUESTION
- WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL
QUESTION
- WORLD’S WHEAT SUPPLY
CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933
- Schedule
QUESTION
- HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon. P. j. Lynch) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2593

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Nauru Island Agreement Act - Ordinances of 1933-

No. 1 - Census.

No. 2. - Laws Repeal and Adopting.

Air Force Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 82.

page 2593

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF PEANUTS

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate of the intention and effect of by-law No. 3001 gazetted on Thursday last under item 91a of the Customs Tariff 1921-30, providing for the admission of peanuts under security, for the manufacturing of oil?

Was the . Queensland Peanut Board advised or consulted prior to the promulgation of this by-law?

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– That is the result of an arrangement with the Peanut Board.

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

– Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have a letter which I received this morning from the Peanut Board, complaining that it is not aware of the actual effect of this . by-law.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If the honorable senator will confer with me on this matter, I shall explain the position to him.

page 2594

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Senator McLACHLAN laid on the table reports and recommendations by the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Records for Gramophones, Phonographs and other Talking Machines.

Perfumery, Petroleum Jelly, Toilet Preparations

Steering Dampers

Electrical and Gas Appliances, viz., Wall, Stand or Table Lamps.

Ordered to be printed.

page 2594

PARLIAMENTARY ECONOMIES

Public Service Board’s Report

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - In a report of Friday’s proceedings in the Senate which has appeared in the press, these words appear as having been used by me in a statement referring to the report of the Public Service Board on the parliamentary staffs -

The report might be regarded as not reflecting the utmost credit on the heads of the various parliamentary departments.

The words that I actually used, as can be seen by a reference to the uncorrected Hansard proof of my statement, do not bear the meaning thus attributed to them. I spoke of the confidential nature of the report, and in giving reasons why it should not be made public, I instanced the possibility of an investigating officer being sent to inquire into the working of a department. I said that, if such an officer knew that he might have to criticize those whose administration he was investigating, and that his remarks might not reflect credit upon the heads of the departments concerned, but that, nevertheless, his report, instead of being treated as confidential, would be made public, he might shrink from the performance of his duties, to the detriment of the Service ; or there might be some similar result which would discount the value of the report. Honorable senators will see that there is a marked difference between, the sense of the language which I used and the implication to be drawn from the words attributed to me in the press report from which I have quoted.

In justice to the heads of the parliamentary departments, all of whom I knew for many years before I came to occupy my present position, when their work has been brought much more closely under my attention, I would say that in the performance of their duties, they are efficient, painstaking, and conscientious; and I ask those representatives of the press who may be present to give as wide publicity to this statement as was given to the report in which a wrong construction was placed upon my statement of Friday.

page 2594

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Ordinances

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Is it a fact that ordinances applying to matters in the Federal Capital Territory have been on several occasions issued by the Government while such matters were pending decision by judicial or other authorities?
If so, will the Government make an explanation of its policy on such matters!

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The answers are

So far as this Government is concerned, the answer is “ No ‘.
It is not the practice to give explanations of policy in answer to questions.

page 2594

QUESTION

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Wheat Production

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Rae

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Will the Government give the Senate an assurance that it will be first consulted before the Resident Minister in London declares at the World Economic Conference any policy of co-operation by Australia in regard to Australian wheat restriction?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister without Portfolio in London will not enter into any undertaking at the World Economic Conference without, the approval of the Government. If and when any proposals are . submitted for the approval of the Commonwealth Government, the Government will give consideration to the question of whether, in view of the nature . of the proposal, it is necessary or advisable also to obtain the approval of Parliament.

Senator DUNN (through Senator Rae) asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to the overseas cable, dated London Tuesday, 20th June, appearing in the Sydney Sun newspaper to the effect that Mr. Bruce, the Resident Minister in London, stated during the course of his discussions before the World Economic Conference that he would support and recommend to the Australian Federal Govern merit a general restriction and reduction of wheat production in Australia?
Is it a fact that Mr. Bruce was in communication by overseas cable and telephone with Canberra and Melbourne, and, if so, what were the Government’s instructions to Mr. Bruce from Canberra and Melbourne on the policy of wheat-growing restrictions in Australia?
Is it not a fact that the Federal Government knew that Mr. Bruce would submit a policy of wheat-growing restrictions to the wheat sub-committee of the World Conference in the name of Australia?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The answers are

My attention has been drawn to the newspaper report referred to. but I am unable to trace any statement by Mr. Bruce of the nature indicated by the honorable senator. Mr. Bruce is reported to have used the following words: -

It seems almost intolerable pessimism to take the view that the world’s evils can only be remedied by restriction of production. While Australia will never consent to such a policy of despair, we are prepared to co-operate in every possible way to solve the world’s problems.

If a practicable scheme is suggested as a temporary measure, the Commonwealth Government is prepared to give attention to it.

Yes, by cablegram. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the communications between the Government and the Minister without Portfolio in London in relation to this important matter, which is still under consideration.
Mr. Bruce did not submitsuch a policy. The policy was submitted by representatives of other countries.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
through Senator Barnes

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

In. view of the important bearing any restriction of wheat area which may be agreed to at the World Economic Conference will have on the Australian States, will the Government promise to fully consult the States before final instructions on this question are communicated to the Commonwealth representative at the conference?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The State governments have been consulted on this matter. As any restriction of wheat acreage involves State legislation action by State parliaments is necessary before the suggested policy could be put into operation.

page 2595

QUESTION

COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Has the Government come to any decision in regard to the request of the recent conference of wheat-growers, held in Melbourne, asking the Government for a ballot of wheatgrowers in Australia, on the subject of a compulsory wheat pool, under the control of the growers 1

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has furnished the following reply: -

The Government is not prepared to make any announcement on this subject while certain international negotiations are proceeding.

page 2595

QUESTION

WORLD’S WHEAT SUPPLY

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Rae

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Is it a fact that Australia is the only country supplying white wheat to the world’s markets, other nations contributing dark wheat?
Docs Australia supply 12 per cent, of the world’s export of wheat?
Is it not a fact that European and Asiatic nations want a white grain wheat to blend with their purchases of dark grain wheat; and could not Australian farmers increase the Commonwealth white grain wheat production by 100,000,000 bushels, and still find a market at a price equivalent to that ruling for wheat produced in other countries?
What assistance is the Commonwealth Government rendering to Australian wheatfarmers in the way of banking credits in the shape of bounties and the setting up of Australian international trade commissioners in European and Asiatic countries?

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– The Minister for Commerce supplies the following answers : - 1 and 3. Nothing is known to support the suggestions made. While Australian wheat has distinctive characteristics, it has to be sold in competition with wheat produced in many other countries.

Australia supplied 10.7 per cent, of the world’s export of wheat in the years 1926 to 1930.
The Commonwealth Government has paid a bounty of 4-½d. per bushel on wheat of the 1931-32 season sold or delivered for sale, the total amount paid being £3,414,147. The Commonwealth Government has also made available to the States £2,000,000 for the assistance of wheat-growers during 1932-33.

page 2596

CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 23rd June (vide page 2590).

Schedule

Group 3. - Revenue items not included under any other heading. ,

Division 2. - Tobacco and Manufactures thereof.

Item 18 agreed to.

Item 19, sub-items (a1, 2) (b1, 2) -

Tobacco, unmanufactured, entered to be locally manufactured into tobacco other than fine cut tobacco suitable for the manufacture of cigarettes - to be paid at the time of removal to the factory -
1. 1 ) Unstentmed, per lb. - British, 3s. ; general, 3s.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (aI), per lb. - British, 4s.6d. ; general, 4s. 6d.

The story of the development of the tobacco industry in Australia is an interesting one. In 1915-16 the quantity of Australian-grown leaf used in the manufacture of tobacco for consumption in this country was 1,730,000 lb., compared with 11,000,000 lb. of imported leaf, or approximately 14 per cent, of the total; in 1928-29 it was 978,000 lb., as against 18,157,000 lb. of imported leaf, the proportion being only about 5 per cent. During that period there was an import duty of 3s. per lb., and an excise duty of 2s. 4d. Although it was well known that many areas in Australia were suitable for the cultivation of the tobacco leaf, very little encouragement was given to Australian growers to pay serious attention to the industry. Up to 1929 there were only 372 persons engaged in the industry, the figures for the various States being, New South Wales, 203 ; Victoria, 56; Queensland, 48 ; South Australia, 18 ; and Western Australia, 47. In 1932, as the direct result of the increased tariff protection given by the Scullin Government, the number of growers increased to 4,032, the figures for the various States being, New South Wales, 550; Victoria, 1,160 ; Queensland, 1,663; South Australia, 230 ; Western Australia, 345 ; Tasmania, 84. It is possible, of course, that, the lowness of the prices ruling for other forms of primary products induced a number of growers to give their attention to tobacco-growing, but I feel sure that the higher protection given to the industry was the principal factor. So great has been the progress made in the last two years, that no one can doubt now that our growers could, if ensured adequate protection, supply the whole of our requirements, though I admit that it may not yet be possible to produce leaf suitable for cigarmaking.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is not the problem confronting our growers one of consumption rather than production ?

Senator BARNES:

– Possibly it is, but Australia’s requirements in tobacco are approximately 20,000,000 lb. a year, and the local production last year was, I understand, in the neighbourhood of 12,000,000 lb. The industry is capable of tremendous expansion, but it should be safeguarded against unfair competition from those countries which produce tobacco under conditions which would not. be tolerated in Australia. For this reason I feel bound to say that the Government is not giving our growers that encouragement which they are entitled to expect.

The cultivation of tobacco does not require the investment of a large amount of capital. Growers may make a comfortable living on small areas. In some districts this industry is looked upon as a very welcome adjunct to other forms of agriculture, as it offers the maximum of employment at that season of the year when employment in other rural industries is scarce. Although the Tariff Board has recently inquired into this industry, it would appear that the members of that body considered it their duty to recommend rates at” which tobacco* growing could be conducted- on an efficient basis in competition with growers in other parts of the world, whereas the policy of the Government should be to encourage the industry in its initial stages, in the belief that, eventually, it would be able to supply the whole of the requirements of this country, thus rendering importation unnecessary. “While I do not question the earnestness with which the board conducted its inquiry, it would seem that the investigation was not so exhaustive as it might have been. I am impelled to say this by newspaper reports of the itinerary of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) who is at present visiting the more important primary-producing Centres of Queeusland. Doubtless, other honorable senators will have noticed, in newspaper reports, the statement that, when the Tariff Board was making its inquiry in Queensland, many people who were vitally interested in tobacco-growing, and were in a position ‘ to give valuable information to that body, had not an opportunity to do so. If one may rely upon press reports, even the Prime Minister seems now to have formed the opinion that the Tariff Board report, on which the Government acted, was not so comprehensive as it might have been. I wish to see restored the conditions which prevailed in this industry when, the Scullin Government was in office, and, as tobacco production is essentially a primary industry, I expect all honorable senators who claim to represent the primary producers in this chamber, to support my proposal. I certainly expect the members of the Country party to do so.

Senator MacDonald:

– The Prime Minister has agreed that there shall be a thorough investigation of the industry by the Tariff Board.

Senator BARNES:

– That may come later, but in the meantime, we should give this industry the protection which it enjoyed two or three years ago. The inquiry of the Parliamentary Select Committee into the tobacco industry was much more exhaustive than that made by the Tariff Board. The members of the select committee, ‘ having visited practically all the tobacco-growing districts and examined a large number of expert witnesses, recommended that duties much higher than those recommended by the Tariff Board, should be imposed.

I shall follow up the request which I have now moved with another relating to excise duties, when the schedule of excise duties is under consideration. In my opinion, the protection at present being afforded to the tobacco-growers is not sufficient to encourage, to the fullest extent, the use of Australian-grown leaf in the manufacture of tobacco here. If we allow tobacco to be brought from overseas, it means that money will go out of Australia which should be kept here. After its brief inquiry, in 1932, the Tariff Board recommended that the import duty should be reduced, and the” excise duty increased. The Government subsequently reduced the import duty by 2s. 2d. per lb., and increased the excise duty by a like, amount. The Scullin duties were import, 5s. 2d.; and excise, 2s. 4d. The present duties are import, 3s. ; and excise, 4s. 6d. It will be noticed that in each case the import and excise duties total 7s. 6d. per lb. What I desire is the reversal of these rates. I think that the import duty should be 4s. 6d. per lb., and the excise duty 3s. per lb.

I appreciate the revenue effect of these duties, but I do not think that the alteration that I have suggested would adversely affect the revenue. If the import duty were increased to 4s. 6d. per lb., a larger quantity of Australian-grown leaf would, undoubtedly, be used in the manufacture of tobacco in this country, and that is desirable. Honorable senators will not need me to tell them that wide public interest is being taken in this subject. During the last few months I have received shoals of letters, and have also given numerous interviews on this subject. There is no doubt that many people whose attitude in regard to the tobacco industry was formerly luke-warm, now realize how important that industry is to the Commonwealth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

.- The Leader of the

Oppositionhas properly stressed the importance of this industry to Australia, but I remind him that it was neither the Government of which he was a member, nor the present Government which took the first steps to stimulate the production of tobacco leaf in Australia. During the regime of the BrucePage Government, the British- Australasian Tobacco Company communicated with that Government, and suggested that certain things should be done to encourage the production of high-class leaf in Australia. A scheme was adopted in conformity with which £30,000 has already been made available by the company, with a subsidy of £1 for £1 from the Commonwealth Government, to encourage and develop, on sane lines, the production of high-grade leaf in this country.’ Officers of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research have been made available to give expert advice on such subjects as the suitability of soil and the treatment of pests, for the benefit of the tobaccogrowers as a whole.

A few years ago, our annual production of tobacco leaf was 2,000,000 lb., but in consequence of the steps taken to stimulate the industry, and also, I think, of the ill-considered action of the previous Government in increasing the duties to an unwarranted extent, this Government, when it assumed office, found that the production of leaf had increased to between 12,000,000 and 13,000,000 lb. per annum. It was also . obvious that those connected with the industry had not acted on the advice given to them by the Tobacco Investigation Committee, a body that was constituted by the Bruce-Page Government, and continued by both the Scullin Government and the present Lyons Government. Tobacco leaf has been grown under conditions under which little regard has been paid to the need for revenue or to the production of saleable leaf only. The growers produced promiscuously, hoping, in some eases, to market leaf of such poor quality that it was aptly described by one honorable senator as something resembling palm trees. Gross tobacco leaf finds no market, and so desperate was the position that, in an endeavour to relieve it, I was driven to the extreme of having inquiries made to see whether it was possible to use the leaf for the manufacture of what is known as “black leaf forty”, and found that it would be uneconomic to do so. The committee will realize, therefore, that the Government has been most solicitous of the welfare of the growers, and has been eager to have the industry founded on sound lines. When the Scullin Government came into office, the duty on leaf was 2s. 8d. per lb. It promptly increased that figure to 3s., raised it to 3s. 6d. in July, 1930, and in December of the same year altered the duty to 5s. 2d. per lb., which resulted in the wholesale, unscientific,’ and utterly unbusinesslike production of gross leaf to which I have referred.

Senator Hardy:

– In what districts was that leaf grown?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I shall come to that directly. I wish to show how sympathetic the attitude of the Government has been towards this industry. We can not listen to the clamour of individuals, or to the howls of the multitude when assisting to build up an industry that we wish to see established on sound foundations.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) has suggested that the Tariff Board made a scrappy investigation of the subject’. I remind him that the result of the activities of the Australian Tobacco Investigation were available to the Tariff Board, also that the matter was referred to the board by Mr. Forde” when he was Minister for Trade and Customs in October, 1931, not merely to consider how the revenue might be affected, but also how the industry might be benefited. At the time when the Tariff Board was examining the subject, the average price of leaf in the United States of America was 6½d. per lb.

Senator Barnes:

– At that price it did not pay the growers to cart their leaf to market.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Some of that leaf came to Australia. The protection which we give the industry is 3s. per lb. If honorable senators will refer to page 5 of the report of the Tariff Board on tobacco, they will see that the prices paid to growers in the United States of America for 1921-22 ranged from 7d. to1s. 4d. per lb., or an average of1s.0½d., while in 1930-31 they were only from 5£d. to 7½. a lb., or an average of 6-Jd., yet, apparently, they met with the satisfaction of growers in that country.

Senator Barnes said that the Australian industry is insufficiently protected, yet the item under consideration is one of the most highly protective in a highly protective tariff. It is evident from the report of the Tariff Board that that body examined the books and returns of growers, which task was probably facilitated by the Tobacco Investigation Committee. The report deals with the production of tobacco leaf in Australia, and with the potential demand for Australian leaf. Two or three facts emerge from it. The first is that that great tobacco-producing country, the United States of America, imports large quantities of tobacco leaf. Next, Canada, with an effective protective duty of ls. Sd. per lb. is exporting tobacco. The report also expresses the opinion that Australia will never be able to export one pound of tobacco, and states also that had we continued the extraordinarily heavy duty imposed by the Scullin Government, the burden- would ultimately fall on the export industries, ;ind thus, by increasing costs, tend to prejudicially affect exports.

This statement is made in reference to an industry which, Senator Barnes claims, is insufficiently protected. Tobacco leaf from the United States of America can be landed in Australia at about ls. per lb. Incidentally, let me add that Canada also imports leaf. In fact, every country which grows tobacco must interchange leaf in order to obtain a mixture which will be palatable to the smoker. The tobacco industry is very much like the wine industry, for many subtleties and difficulties are encountered in blending in order to evolve a leaf that is palatable to the smoker.

Senator BARNES:

– Has the honorable senator smoked Australian tobacco?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Not only have I smoked it ; I grow it. And I hailed with satisfaction the fact that we were not to be left with a wretched industry on our hands which could not exist because the growers had embarked on the production of a worthless class of leaf. I hope shortly, also, to be a manufacturer of tobacco; so that I speak as one who has a deep interest in the industry.

I do not wish to be offensive to the sugar industry; but I believe that it has been brought to its present position because of political interference. The tobacco industry would have been in exactly the same position had the protective duty that was imposed by the Scullin Government remained, and we should not have been able to export 1 lb. of tobacco unless we found a method of extracting from the public the cash to pay for our exports. I admit that we might be able to arrange, under the Ottawa agreement, for the export of part of pur production of tobacco leaf, but we shall have to sell it in competition with Canadian-grown leaf. The following remarks appear at page 12 of the report of the Tariff Board:-

Although the United States of America in 1928 produced 1,373,500,000 lb. of tobacco loaf and exported 024,000,000 lb., that country still imported 141,000,000 lb. Canada has successfully developed her leaf-growing industry, and is now able to export 6,500,000 of leaf annually, yet that country still imports 19,000,000 lb. of tobacco.

I put it to honorable senators that we cannot force the people of Australia to use something which does not suit them, or, as in the case of tobacco, to smoke leaf which does not suit their palates.

Senator Collings:

– But they were smoking it.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Of course, and I hope they will continue to do so. If, however, we had endeavoured to make them use Australian leaf exclusively, we should have found that the consumption of tobacco would have gradually diminished. This was discovered by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company and other large firms in whose hands is 90 per cent, of the tobacco trade. It was their policy to introduce into their manufactured tobacco as much as possible of the lower-grade leaf, but they found that, when the admixture of low grade leaf reached a certain point, the consumption of tobacco began to decline. It was definitely proved that this decline in consumption was due to the presence of too great a proportion of inferior leaf in the manufactured article. Why should we in Australia, where conditions of soil and climate are eminently suitable for the production of high grade tobacco, find it necessary to impose a protective duty of even 3s. per lb. in order to encourage our local industry, when Canada, where the natural conditions are not nearly so favorable, has been able to establish and expand its tobacco-growing industry with a protective duty of only ls. 8d. per lb. ?

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

– I wish the Minister had exhibited as much enthusiasm for low duties on some of the other items in the schedule as he has in regard to tobacco. The Leader of the Opposition appealed to members of the Country party to support him in his proposal for increasing the duties. I sympathize with the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to encourage this valuable Australian industry, but I am afraid that the sentiments I shall express in the course of my speech may not all meet with his approval. There is no doubt that the tobacco-growers of New South Wales are definitely of the opinion that the Government has made an Aunt Sally of them. They believe, with a great deal of justification, that they have been victimized by the reduction of the tobacco duties. Throughout the debate on the tariff I have consistently taken up the attitude that I am not prepared to support the increasing of any duty, because I believe that what Australia requires to-day is a gradual scaling down of the tariff. Therefore, I do not intend to support the Leader of the Opposition in his plea for higher tobacco duties. I have also consistently fought against increasing the duty on foreign goods, my reason being that it is bad national policy to antagonize those foreign countries with which we trade. I have previously quoted figures to show that, of every £100 worth of good’s which we export, no less than £40 worth are bought by foreign countries, with most of whom we have favorable trade balances. When we consider the tobacco trade, however, we find that the same reason for conciliating foreign opinion does not exist. Most of the tobacco we import comes from the United States of America, and, as all honorable senators know, we have a seriously adverse trade with that country. In. 1931-32, we imported from the United States of America goods to the value of £7,037,751 in. British currency, and we had an adverse trade of £3,S12,644, also in British currency. Therefore, anything we may do to encourage the’ importation of tobacco from the United States of America will have the effect of further increasing our adverse trade with that country. In view of our overseas liabilities, and the difficulty we experience in meeting them, our policy should be to restrict our purchases from the United States of America, and, if the encouragement of an Australian industry such as that of tobacco-growing will tend in this direction, we should encourage it. For the last five years for which figures are available our tobacco imports from the United States of America were -

Our overseas tobacco purchases play an important part in the creation of our adverse trading with the United States of America. Besides purchasing from that country more than we sell to it, we owe to the United States of America over £47,000,000, on which we have to pay annually an interest bill in Australian currency of £4,124,000. The Government, by reducing the duty and increasing the excise, unfortunately is not pursuing a policy in regard to tobacco which will .discourage the purchase of leaf from the United States of America. I do not object to the reduction of duty; but, in increasing the excise on Australian leaf, the Government is actually discouraging the production of tobacco in Australia, and is doing much to wreck the good work accomplished in the past. Until recently the Australian tobacco-growing industry was dying on its feet. I do not propose to say to whom should go the credit for its revival, although the Minister has claimed for his Government the credit for scientific research and investigation which has been of value to the industry. In 1916-17, 14 per cent, of all the tobacco consumed in’ Australia was locally grown. In 1916, when the quantity of Australian leaf used by local manufacturers was 1,703,020 lb., they purchased 12,541,316 lb. of imported leaf; but, in 1928, the quantity of Australian tobacco used totalled only 978,030 lb., as compared with 19,135,709 lb. of imported leaf, which shows that the proportion of locally-grown leaf had fallen from 14 per cent, to 5 per cent. Although the Government investigation into the tobacco industry has been helpful, there must be other reasons for the wonderful expansion of the industry and for the present demand for the locally-grown article.

Senator McLachlan:

– The principal tobacco company has been subsidizing the industry.

Senator HARDY:

– Yes; but it has also been exploiting the public. Of all the monopolies in Australia, the tobacco company’s monopoly- is the worst. I shall refer later to the balance-sheets of that company. The expansion of the local industry is clearly due, to a large extent, to .the encouragement given to it under the tariff. Whether that policy is right or wrong, and whether it will have a boomerang effect or not, may be a matter for debate. As the Leader of the ^Opposition (Senator Barnes) has remarked, there are now 4,000 registered growers in Australia, and they include men in almost every station of life. Some who were previously on the dole are now growing tobacco on small areas. The development of the industry has helped considerably in the solution of the problem of unemployment.

I refute the statement made in another place by the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) that half of the tobacco grown in certain districts is produced by Chinese. That assertion was unworthy of the honorable gentleman. I share the view of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson), who declared that he would rather have Chinese growing tobacco in Australia than import leaf produced in America by negro labour. Of the 4,000 growers in Australia, only about 40, or 1 per cent., are Chinese. Sir Henry Gullett cast an unjustifiable slur on the tobacco industry of this country. Last year, the area devoted to tobacco cultivation was 25,000 acres, and 15,000 persons found direct employment in the industry, apart from the large number who were indirectly employed.

The cash value of the crop last year amounted to £1,250,000, while in the previous year it was worth only £92,000, so Lt is not difficult to calculate how much had to be paid to the American interests. Having regard to Australia’s adverse trade with the United States of America, it is obviously to our advantage to give every possible encouragement to the local industry, which has been definitely established, and is of national importance. In 1929, before the present duty was imposed, 20,000,000 lb. of- tobacco was cleared from bond; but, during the year after the duty had come into operation, only 15,000,000 lb. wa3 cleared. I shall take opportunities later to deal with other aspects of the tobacco duties.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– These duties are of deep concern to the people of Queensland. I support the requested amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (.Senator Barnes). We hope that, at the conclusion of the debate on this item, all members of the Country party will ‘ be ready to support the Opposition, because we are acting in the direct interests of the primary producers. The Minister has spoken of ill-advised action by the Scullin Government; but it is usual for our tory opponents so to characterize the actions of Labour governments generally. So serious was the financial position of Australia when the Scullin Government came into office that it found it necessary to take drastic steps to reduce the volume of imports, and to increase local production. Had the conditions obtaining at that time not been extraordinary, possibly the Scullin Government would not have raised the duty on unstemmed tobacco to 5s. 2d. per lb., and, had it continued in office, it might have made some alteration pf the tobacco duties.

Senator McLachlan:

– Mr. Scullin seems to have had some doubt on the matter, because he referred it to the Tariff Board.

Senator BROWN:

– Many such matters are referred to the board. It must not be imagined that members of the Labour party are entirely opposed to inquiries by that board. We desire to obtain as much information as possible, yet we claim that the Parliament should not be made subordinate to the board. The present Government takes it for granted that everything the board says is right. The Minister has offered the excuse that the board had other information to help it. I point out that it sat in Brisbane on the 16th November, in Sydney on the 19th November, in Melbourne on the 1st December, and in Perth on the 14th December, and a good deal of the time between those dates was occupied in travelling. It is the conviction of my colleagues and I that the board did not investigate, as ‘the Parliamentary Select Committee did, the details of this particular industry. The select committee made a thorough investigation of it, during which it sat for many weeks, and travelled many hundreds of miles. Its recommendation was that substantial protection should be given to develop the industry. The Minister has said that the duty imposed was ill-advised, unwise, unbusinesslike, and unscientific. I do not know whether others agree with those sentiments, but I certainly do not. I contend that, if an industry is in a low state of development, a high duty should be imposed, to afford it every facility to develop. That, however, does not imply that I would countenance inefficiency. Sound advice must be given to the growers. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research deserves commendation for what it has done towards assisting this and many other industries to improve their efficiency. But an industry which admittedly is in its infancy, must be given every assistance ; and the duty of 5s. 2d. per lb. undoubtedly had the remarkable effect of increasing by several thousands the number of persons engaged in tobacco-growing. There have been many failures, because of lack of knowledge how to grow and cure tobacco; but,’ according to the latest information available, the initial difficulties have largely been overcome, and, to-day, the local leaf is equal to the best Virginian lemon leaf. Senator Collings will demonstrate the strides that have been made in Queensland, in the light of which it is reasonable to assume that, in a few years, the local growers will be able to supply the whole of the requirements of the Commonwealth. It is pleasing to note that, as the result of his recent visit to northern Queensland, the Prime Minister now has a better conception of the value and importance to Australia of the tobacco and other industries. The Tariff Board, during its investigation, did not visit North Queensland, nor interview the tobaccogrowers of Mareeba, one of the most important tobacco-growing districts in that State. Mr. S. Birrell, the president of the North Queensland Tobacco Growers’ Association, was one of those who met the Prime Minister at Yungaburra. The report of that meeting, which appears in the Brisbane Courier of Friday last, says that Mr. Birrell “ made a powerful plea on behalf of the growers “, and went on to say -

Hundreds of the growers in the district were on the breadline. He urged that, as the combine was not buying good, useable Australian tobacco, steps should bc taken to prohibit importations until the manufacturers were prepared to use 30 per cent, of Australian leaf. The Tariff Board, upon whose report the Government acted, had never been at Mareeba, and Mareeba growers had never been given a chance to state their case. … He gave an account of comparative costs, to show that the Tariff Board’s figures were considerably far short of the facts.

The report continues -

Mr. Lyons handled the meeting with great tact.

The right honorable gentleman would need to be tactful, because his Government had jeopardized the position of the growers by leaving them exposed . to the competition of black-grown tobacco. The report further states -

He was apparently impressed with the statements made. In replying to the charges that the Tariff Board had never heard the case of the Mareeba growers, and that the tobacco combine buyers were rejecting good tobacco without examination, he promised an i n depend en t in vest tigat ion .

That was tantamount to an admission that” there had not been a proper investigation to safeguard the interests of the tobacco-growers. The report goes on to say-

He said it seemed to him that, in view of the fact that the Tariff Board was a guide for the Government, it was right that the board should investigate the question, in order to get the fullest facts in connexion with the industry. “We agree that the fullest investigation should be made. The right honorable gentleman has admitted that there has not been such an investigation, because he has promised a further independent investigation. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on that aspect of the matter. The Prime Minister added -

I will guarantee that an independent investigation shall be made into your circumstances.

– No, not with me, but I have seen them. I should say that I support the Government on this sub-item with a certain degree of reluctance, because it happens that I have a number of tobacco-growers in my State. “When there was an agitation about a year ago, I went down to see them, and put before them my views, telling them that I considered that the alterations made by the Government were desirable, and that I intended to support them. I also inspected their product. The growers whom I interviewed struck me as being particularly capable, and typical, J dare say, of growers in the other States. It is uneconomical to impose high protection on a commodity such as tobacco thereby forcing up land values to an artificial figure, the result being that many men who engage in this new industry discover, eventually, that because of overcapitalization the business is uncommercial, and, perforce, they have to drop out. It would be much better to establish this industry from the beginning on a more reasonable basis.

– The honorable senator must be fortunate. I wish that I were in the same position. In justice to Queensland growers, I should add that the tobacco which I tried was made from leaf grown in northern New South Wales.

I shall support the item also for the reason that the Government, by reducing the duty from the figure at which the Scullin Government left it, has shown commendable courage, though for doing so it has been subjected to a good deal of unfair criticism. I wish that it had shown similar courage in dealing with a great many other items of the schedule. In supporting the item I do not think that it will harm the unfortunate tobaccogrowers; on the contrary, my opinion is that it will help to correct a thoroughly uneconomic situation.

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

– Senator McLachlan has twitted the Country party with differing from the Labour party in this matter just as Tweedledum differs from Tweedledee. I do not know exactly what the honorable senator meant to imply by his remark, unless it is that there is no difference between advocating a reduction of excise on Australiangrown tobacco leaf, as we do, and advocating an increase of import duty, as the Leader of the Opposition has done; but we think there is a vast difference. In expressing my individual opinion that the Country party does not stand for the increase of duties, I believe that I am also expressing the opinion of the Country party as a whole. We believe _ that the fiscal wall should be lowered, “ and we have fought consistently to achieve that end.

Senator Barnes:

– If the honorable senator does not favour an increase of the import duty, but succeeds in obtaining a decrease of the excise duty, he will put the tobacco-growers in a worse position than ever.

Senator HARDY:

– I do not think so. A reduction of the excise duty, for which I shall move when the excise duties are under consideration, would not interfere with the preferential treatment of the Australian industry. If we have an import duty of per lb., British, 3s., and foreign, 4s. 6d., and the same rate of excise duty on each, the local growers will admittedly still have an advantage. It must be remembered, however, that if the import duty of 3s. were altered to 4s. 6d., the users of tobacco would be in a worse position than they are in to-day. It cannot be denied that any increase of customs duty has a reflection on internal costs. It is the rigidity of internal costs which, in the opinion of the Country party, is one of the curses of Australia. If we can get a reduction of costs which will result in a reduction of price to the consumers, and still give that protection to the local industry which it deserves for having adopted a policy of expansion, we should certainly do so. That desirable objective is to’ be achieved through a preferential excise duty on Australian-grown leaf. That is the policy of the Country party. I . know that the Minister will probably say that a reduction of excise duty would adversely affect the revenue, but I do not think that it would do so to a serious extent. We all know that it is necessary for the Government to maintain its revenue. The Tariff Board touches on this point. After referring to the additional labour that would be required for the growing, curing handling, and manufacturing of a large proportion of leaf in Australia, it states -

This is of utmost importance, as it would not only assist in solving the unemployment problem, but, by increasing ‘the field of direct taxation, would increase the revenue from that source, and thus offset, to some extent, the loss of revenue from the import and excise duties on tobacco and tobacco manufactures. Having regard to all the circumstances, the Tariff Board is of opinion that it would be unwise during the period in which the Australian loaf-growing industry is -becoming established, to seek to increase the net revenue from tobacco beyond the amount raised during 1929-30, namely, approximately £6,500,000.

Senator McLachlan:

– That was the combined customs and excise revenue.

Senator HARDY:

– The indications that we gather from the financial returns that have been published show that the’ Government is ina fair way to collect this year from tobacco- duties not £6,500,000, but £7,120,000, which is £620,000 in excess of the amount which the Tariff Board suggested as a fair figure. If the move which I intend to make on behalf of the Country party for a reduction of excise duty is successful, the revenue will not be reduced below the amount of £6,500,000, which the Tariff Board suggested was reasonable, while the tobacco-growers will be givena fighting chance of success. Everybody knows that tobacco-growing was taken up by many people under rush conditions which led to a good deal of inefficiency, but there is no reason why the people who embarked upon this industry should be condemned tofailure. They should be given-‘ an opportunity to remedy their mistakes. In 1931-32, we had an adverse trade- balance with the United States of America of £3,000,000, and we have to pay that country annually £4,124,000, Australian currency, in interest. If we can improve our -adverse trade balance by stimulating the growing of tobacco leaf on economic lines we should do so, for the industry would undoubtedly be a national- asset.

When I was referring some little time ago to. the manufacturers, and was ruled out of order, I was arguing that the manufacturers, and not the Labour party, would drive the people into socialism - if they were driven into it. The members of our party have said many times in the country that there is not much difference between the Trades Hall and the Chamber, of Manufactures, though, of course, we cannot expect our view to be universally accepted.

The profits which the British- Australasian Tobacco. Company have made in the last decade or so show clearly that . the public has been exploited. It may be contended that the tobacco combine is to-day using £3,000,000 worth of Australian-grown leaf annually, but it’ cannot be . said that it is giving the smoking public a fair deal. The Tariff Board-, in- discussing the profits of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, stated- r

The business - expanded as consumption increased, but the additional capital required from time to time appeals to have been provided from profits made by the subsidiaries and held in reserve after shareholders in the British Tobacco Company (Australia) Limited had received very satisfactory dividends. For the nine years ended the 30th June, 1929, the following dividends were paid by the” British Tobacco Company (Australia) Limited : -

While maintaining a dividend rate of 12 per cent., the combine has increased its profits in the period that I have covered from £491,987 to £894,791. *

SenatorFoll. - How much capital has been subscribed?

Senator HARDY:

– The Tariff Board’s report shows that the stock has been watered. This company practically controls the manufacture of tobacco in Australia. The question has been asked whether the company, by providing a certain amount of money for the encouragement of the Australian tobacco industry, has a real desire to assist the industry. I do not propose to discuss that point at the moment, but I direct the attention of honorable senators to the following statement, which also appears in the board’s report : -

At the annual meeting of the Melbourne Stock Exchange on the 29th October, 1931, the chairman, in referring to the reduced earnings of industrial companies, quoted figures showing that the net profits of 60 industrial companies with shareholders’ funds aggregating approximately £50,000,000, fell from 7.7 per cent, in 1928-29 to 2.6 per cent, in 1930-31.

Yet the tobacco combine has been able to maintain its 12 per cent, dividend rate right through the depression !

Senator Barnes:

– That is a better rate than “the rate of 10 per cent, maintained by the banks.

Senator HARDY:

– Quite so. It certainly shows that the combine has had very little regard for either the consuming public or the unfortunate tobaccogrowers. We believe that the tobaccogrowers are entitled toa chance to make a success of their industry. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the tobacco manufacturers entered into an agreement last year to buy 8,000,000 lb. of tobacco at 2s. 3d. per lb., but he may not say - and, therefore, I shall - that after buying that quantity at that price the manufacturers bought another 2,000,000 lb. at lower prices, which averaged1s. per lb., and left 2,000,000 lb. in the hands of the growers. But what have the manufacturers done this year? Although they have been making such tremendous profits, they have not entered into a similar contract in respect of this season’s crop.

Senator Sampson:

– Should they be compelled to buy the tobacco leaf irrespective of its quality?

Senator HARDY:

– -They have intimated that they are prepared to take the gold leaf ; but, actually, the growers have nothing definite to work on for this year.

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– I suppose the honorable senator knows that no arrangement was entered into for this year, because the growers wanted a free hand.

Senator HARDY:

– That is probably because they were not satisfied with the price they received last year. I am. sure that the growers would gladly sell their whole crop if they could get a profitable price for it. The Minister must know that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in this industry to-day. The duties imposed by the Scullin Government were, per lb., import, 5s. 2d.; excise, 2s. 4d. This Government has reduced the rates to import 3s. and excise 4s. 6d., but it must be remembered that, excise has to be paid on all tobacco. What honorable senator will say that the Australiangrown tobacco has not been penalized through the imposition of the additional excise duty? A careful calculation shows that the weight of the burden is 93 per cent. The logical conclusion is that the Australian industry has been discouraged, to the benefit of the foreign product. If it can be shown that the revenue will not be depleted, and that the Government will not sacrifice the £6,500,000 referred to by the Tariff Board, will the Government and its supporters stand behind a reduction of excise, which will give the Australian tobacco industry a reasonable chance of pulling through and establishing itself on a reasonable basis?

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– The way in which honorable senators opposite change their convictions as we pass from one item to another is astounding, for, throughout, the principle rs the same. Their subterfuges are particularly interesting to one who endeavours to take a logical view of the situation and consistently follow a guiding principle of political economy.

Senator Hardy twitted my colleagues and myself about somebody having said, somewhere, and at some old time, that there is little difference between the political villainy of the Trades Hall and the Chambers of Commerce.

Senator HARDY:

– I said that the farmers placed them on the same basis.

Senator COLLINGS:

– In endeavouring to champion the rights of this important primary industry I am quite prepared to be classed with the Trades Hall, but I do not like the comparison with the Chambers of Commerce, although 1 should be willing to act in collaboration with them if their principles were right and just.

We have heard a good deal about the danger that would follow if the Government further assisted the Australian tobacco industry, and have been told that already the “ combine “ is making immense profits. If that is the only argument against doing the right thing by the industry, why does not the Government take action against the combine? I am sure that such action would have the support of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce), for it is on record that, only some 30 years ago, he was in favour of smashing all combines. The sentiment was a fine one then, and it is excellent ethics now.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator not to proceed with that line of argument.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I want to point out that this argument used against this proposal for the encouragement of the Australian tobacco industry is fallacious, and should not be entertained. Senator Pearce has shown how the combines can be attacked, for, on the occasion I refer to, he suggested that if they were guilty of doing the things with which they were charged they should be nationalized. When an interjector asked whether the honorable sena- - tor would favour compensation, he said, “ No. Why compensate them for anything”?

We are also urged to proceed warily in this matter because the inflation of land values has occurred as a result of the establishment of the industry. In the vernacular that is “ one on me “, and an extraordinary argument to come from honorable senators opposite. Evidently this is not one of the activities to which the tariff-slashers referred as a “backyard “ industry, for, according to Senator

Hardy, the manufacturers are making fortunes, and paying enormous dividends. When an industry is struggling to get a foothold, and has not yet displayed its capability to produce the right article economically, it is termed a backyard industry, and deemed to be not worth-while. In this case, honorable senators say that, as a result of the protection given by the Scullin Government, the tobacco industry is paying enormous dividends. Apparently, it is impossible to please them.

I shall say a word or two regarding the criticism by Senator Duncan-Hughes of the Australian product. I am not in a position to judge from personal experience the quality of our tobacco, because I am not a smoker, and cannot understand why persons indulge in a habit which ruins their system with the nicotine they absorb, fouls the atmosphere, and makes rooms stuffy. However, 95 per cent, of honorable senators do smoke, and I should like to have their opinion of the samples which I have before me. Senator Duncan-Hughes said that he purchased a tin of Australian tobacco, and still has the remains of it. which, he added, he would not offer to a visitor. It is a long time since he has bought that tobacco, and the tobacco industry has made great strides in Australia in the interval. What the honorable senator said in regard to the Australian industry could have been said of hundreds of other Australian industries which finally emerged successfully, and now export their products in competition with the world. We should not decry the tobacco industry merely because one honorable senator purchased a sample that did not please his taste, which, probably, has been badly educated.

It has been claimed that the .tobacco marketed under the trade name “Mareeba” does not contain any leaf produced in that area. I have before me two fair-sized samples grown in the Mareeba district, and processed by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, bearing the certificate that they contain only Mareeba tobacco. Their appearance is certainly that of a high-class product. The following figures are interesting, for they reveal the progress that has been made by the Australian industry in the last few years: -

Those figures are of vital importance, because they enable us to understand what has happened, and to vote intelligently on the subject. When the Government reduced the import duty from 5s. 2d. to 3s. and increased the excise to 4s. 6d., the price of American tobacco remained unaltered, but that of the local product increased by 2s. 2d. per lb., and this caused a tremendous set-back to our industry. We are not asking the Government to forgo any revenue; we merely ask it to exploit foreign rather than local channels when seeking avenues by which to draw revenue from this industry at a given figure.

Honorable senators opposite and members of the Country party frequently express sympathy with the unemployed, and I , believe that they are sincere in their expressions. I shall show what results from reducing tariffs. When the duty on American leaf was increased, one tobacco manufacturing firm operating in Australia immediately engaged 70 additional hands, its piece workers earned 33 per cent, more than they do to-day, and an additional twelve strippers were put into use. When this Government altered the duty, those twelve strippers became idle, and the original number has been reduced by 33 per cent. Of the 70 additional hands, 40 have been discharged, and the remaining 30 are now part-time workers. The factory of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company has had a similar experience. Senator Brennan, I think, questioned the accuracy of my statement when I recalled the number of commodities which, in my youth, were habitually imported, but are now made locally. Since I spoke, I have thought of _ other things which, at that time, were imported; such as pickles, vinegar, sauce, confectionery, jams, biscuits, and smoked and tinned fish. During my life I have seen the first attempts at producing these commodities in Australia, and I have seen those industries expand until they have come to occupy an important place in our national life.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator Grant:

– Why was no Mareeba leaf offered?

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– Probably it had not been harvested. This season was rather late, and I am informed that some disease affected the crop. At the deputation that waited upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), towards the end of 1932, it was urged that arrangements should be entered into, subject to the approval of the growers, for the purchase by the manufacturers of 10,000,000 lb. of leaf out of the .1933 crop. The growers in North Queensland, on learning of the deputation’s request, raised objection to another such agreement being made. They argued that, under average price agreements, the growers of high-quality leaf do not receive a price commensurate with the value of the leaf offered, because, to maintain the average price, the lower grade leaf commands a better price than that to which it is entitled, and a lower price is consequently offered for high grade leaf. As the result of negotiations, the principal tobacco manufac turing company has assured the Government that it will purchase, out of the 1933 crop, all grades of bright mahogany and upwards, and so much of the dark leaf as will replace the quantity used in manufacture during the coming financial year. Owing to the uncertainty of the crop, the manufacturers have given, no undertaking as to the quantity which will be purchased, or the price which will be paid. In the tobacco-growing district in which I have interests, considerable damage occurred through frost and blue mould. Honorable senators may think that I am showing an undue amount of anxiety with regard to this industry ; but I regard it as one of the industries of this country which are worth developing. Part of my job in this Government is to endeavour to establish industries that will assist in the solution of the problem of unemployment. Yet, we must proceed on sound lines, and I am not sure that we have not given too much assistance to the industry.

Honorable senators may offer the comment that the principal tobacco company has declined to purchase some leaf on the ground of its poor quality. The outstanding case is that of the unsold leaf in the Tamworth district in New South Wales. When the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) originally brought this matter under the notice of the Government, I arranged for one of the officers of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to proceed to Tamworth and investigate the complaint. This work, which was carried out by Mr. G. E. Marks, the Senior Agronomist of the Australian Tobacco Investigation, was followed up by an inquiry by the New South Wales Government’s tobacco expert, Mr. Tregenna. I have no wish to do any harm to the growers; but it should be realized that while some land is capable of producing leaf of excellent quality, tobacco grown on certain other land will never command a good market in this or any other country. Mr. Marks is an independent officer. He has no political feeling in this matter, and no interests to serve except those of the public. His report was confirmed by Mr. Tregenna.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- The Minister has been dealing with a matter of deep interest, and I am sure that honorable senators will be glad to know something of the contents of the report submitted by Mr. Marks.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– This officer reported, inter alia -

I might mention that here, as well as throughout the general tour, much ignorance was displayed by most of the growers regarding the more improved methods of growing, curing and handling of the crop in general. …

In referring to cultivation, I would like to point out that a mostcrroneous practice obtains here of irrigating from time to time along the same furrow without any intervening cultivation. The plants are, therefore, growing in a hard, compact soil, with little chance of normal root development.

From observations of the leaf being “harvested at the present time, it is noticeable that many of the barns are being filled with leaf of varying degrees of ripeness, with the result that the curer has to extend his sweating or yellowing process so as to give time for the greener leaves to change colour, thus resulting in the destruction of colour and quality of the better or riper leaf. Generally speaking, the growers here are backward both in the methods of curing and of handling their crops. There seems to be no defined system of grading the cured leaf, and no standard grades are adopted. For instance, no two “ No. 1 “ grades are alike.

It was also noticeable that large quantities, of leaf had been ruined by the ravages of thrips.

In no case, I might add, did I see any leaf of the higher grades which was not intermingled with that of lower grades, even though some lots had already been regraded since being offered for sale.

From fifteen to twenty of the tobaccogrowers in the Tamworth district are Chinese, judging by their names, and although I have no desire to cast any reflection upon them, I must say that their cultural methods are more suitable for the production of cabbages and turnips than for the growing of tobacco on uptodate lines.

Senator Hardy:

– Sir Henry Gullett said that half of the growers in the Tamworth district were Chinese. Is that correct ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– A very large percentage of them are Chinese.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator McLACHLAN:

- Mr. Marks, in his report, also says -

Reference to the accompanying chart will show that of the 4,344 bales rejected by the British- Australasian Tobacco Company, the analysis gives only 8 per cent, of usable leaf.

In his explanatory notes he gives the following details of dark leaf that he examined : - d.3. The leaf shown under this heading is unusable as a smoking tobacco, being of a nondescript nature, and includes badly thripeaten, immature, green, badly cured, and musty or mouldy leaf. It also includes scraps and sweepings, and in very few cases did the growers expect to be able to sell. The crop shortage and the boom prices realized for such leaf in the previous year induced the growers to save this class of leaf last year. d.2. The leaf shown under this column is usually graded asD.2, d.3 and d.4, and is usable only in very limited quantities for smoking purposes. These grades include leaf which is slightly thrip-eaten, immature, green, poorly cured, and musty or mouldy leaf.

He gives an analysis of all the bales unsold. I cite one or two typical cases. Gum Chin offered 36 bales, of which 10 were sold and 26 rejected. Quong Yung, Yum Poey, and Y. Yun offered 103 bales, of which 87 were sold and 16 rejected. See Saung Coy offered 275 bales, of which 51 were sold and 224 rejected. Chaffey. Brothers offered 132 bales, of which 129 were sold and 3 rejected. So it is right through the piece. This report is confirmed by Mr. Tregenna, the New South “Wales Government tobacco expert, in the following statement, which appeared in the Sydney Daily ‘Telegraph of the 24th June last : -

He has seen good tobacco grown at Tamworth, notably at Moor Creek, but this was on light, sandy soils. He could say that wherever growers grew on such soils buyers would come after the leaf. He considered there was too much fighting going on in the industry . . . He adhered to his opinion, expressed in his report of 1914, that they would have to give up growing tobacco on heavy river flats. His job was to keep in touch with manufacturers’ requirements, and advise growers what the big firms wanted. He had tried to do that.

I ask Senator Foll to give one instance of leaf having been rejected in any quantity. I know that since the report from which I have just quoted was made, a buyer from Queensland, in order to obtain a suitable blend, visited Tamworth and had to pick out odd bales from the huge quantity rejected. I want honorable senators to understand that the Government is not making an Aunt Sally of the growers, but, on the contrary, is anxious to do all that it can to assist them and to place the industry on a firm foundation. That is proved by what has been done in co-operation with, and to some extent at the expense of, the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company. The subsidy of £1 for £1 has extended over a period of years, and the Tobacco Investigation is still in existence, giving advice and doing whatever else it can to place the industry on a sound footing. I could not help thinking that Senator Hardy believed that the Tamworth growers had been badly treated. There is no foundation for such a belief. It ta of no use to attempt to market unusable leaf. Senators MacDonald and Hardy have suggested that the excise should be increased. However that proposal might be coloured, the object is to give the grower the benefit of additional protection.

Senator Collings:

– That is what we want to do.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That proposal can be dealt with at the proper time. I doubt whether the effect would be to make tobacco cheaper to the user. Honorable senators may rest assured that the Government has not acted in a spirit of hostility. What it has done may not be to the immediate advantage of the growers, but it will benefit those who remain in the industry and make it of permanent value to Australia.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I accept the assurance of the Minister that the Government desires, and has endeavoured, to assist what it considers the best element among the growers of tobacco. My complaint, however, is that that object may not be achieved by the action that has been taken. The effect of the alteration of the Scullin tariff has been to handicap the Australian grower by causing a marked decline in the use of the local article, and to increase the trade in imported tobaccoes. A fair compromise between the Scullin and the present duties was recently suggested by the manager of one of the oldest tobacco, manufacturing companies in Melbourne as follows : - Import duty, 4s. 6d. per lb. ; excise duty, a flat rate of 3s. per lb. The

Scullin margin was 5s. 2d., whereas the present margin is only 3s. The suggested margin is 4s. 6d. In regard to revenue, the report of the Tariff Board states -

Having regard to all the circumstances, the Tariff Board is of opinion that it would be unwise during the period in which the Australian leaf-growing industry is becoming established, to seek to increase the net revenue from tobacco beyond the amount raised during 1929-30, namely, approximately £6,500,000.

The official net revenue figures for the first nine months of 1932-33 show an increase of £480,000 over the corresponding period for last year. Based on .these figures, the net revenue from tobacco for’ the full year 1932-33, under the present rates of duty, will be £7,120,000. The additional- revenue is being raised mainly at the expense of the local industry. Based on the quantity of tobacco that went into consumption in 1930-31, the suggested rates would yield approximately £6,533,000 in revenue. The calculation will be found in the scheme put forward by the Tobacco Growers’ Association in their newspaper Tobacco. Senator Hardy is evidently very anxious to give the utmost protection to the growers. That, also, is the concern of honorable senators of the Opposition. I am well aware that the big manufacturing interests are quite able to take care of themselves. I am concerned about the grower, for the reason that he has not the advantage of long experience, nor has he had an opportunity to build a fortress within which he may defend himself. The interest taken in the production of tobacco during the last two or three years shows clearly that encouragement was offered, and hope given, to a number of persons who previously had no idea that there was a reasonable chance of making a living in this occupation. So far as I have been able to gather, many of them are willing to take the risks mentioned by the Minister, for the specific purpose of educating themselves to the stage when they will be able to produce a leaf of marketable quality. That some growers are able to supply the requirements of the market is proved by the fact that out of 132 bales offered in one case, only three ba-es were unsold. . Why should not others learn by experience what that grower had to learn before he could market his crop so successfully? The figures that I have quoted show that the import and excise duties proposed by this Government handicap the Australian grower to the extent of 93 per cent. As an Australian, 1 want to know why that load should be placed on the backs of my countrymen.

Senator Hardy:

– We want to take it off.

Senator BARNES:

– It cannot be removed in the manner suggested by the honorable senator.

Senator Hardy:

– lt can be taken off by a preferential excise tariff.

Senator BARNES:

– I have suggested a simple and commonsense method of affording the grower an oportunity to market his leaf. It has been suggested that honorable senators on this side are not concerned about the user of tobacco. [ have been a smoker all my life, and probably smoke as much as the average man, consequently, I am deeply interested in that aspect of the matter. Numbers of my friends have stopped smoking, because they cannot afford to buy tobacco at the prices charged by the companies. [ agree with those who suggest that the tobacco companies are exploiting the consuming public of Australia. I, of course, desire tobacco to be cheaper. I have in my pocket a 2-oz. tin of Australian tobacco which I obtained from the Parliamentary refreshment bar for ls. 9d. f have also a 2-oz. tin of imported tobacco called “ Welcome Nuggett “ for which I paid 2s. 2d. After smoking the two tobaccoes, I am of. the opinion that the Australian product is the better. If that does not demonstrate that the Australian smokers are obtaining, in the local product, a tobacco superior in quality to the imported article, then my smoking taste must have deteriorated considerably. At one time, a 2-oz. tin of imported tobacco could be obtained for 9d., but when the need arose for additional revenue, the tariff was increased. Quite a number of people are to-day complaining that the tobacco duties are too high, but the previous Government saw fit to increase the tariff in an endeavour to balance its budget, and, in that respect, it very nearly accomplished its purpose. Its action at least had the merit of awakening many people to the fact that there was in this country an industry in which they could interest themselves, and from which they might make a living. We have annually sent over £2,000,000 out of Australia to buy tobaccoes. That sum would better have been used for the benefit of the wage-earners and other sections of the community by giving them an opportunity to engage in the tobacco-growing industry. Surely, we can preserve, as between excise and customs duties, a commonsense balance, which will enable us to collect the necessary revenue, to encourage the Australian grower, and to protect the Australian consumer. The tobacco importers do not study the interests of either the Australian grower or the Australian consumer. Their one object is to build up a profitable business for themselves. Senator Hardy has said .that the balancesheet of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company discloses that, over a number of years, it has made a profit of 12 per cent., which is 2 per cent, above the dividends paid by the banks. The BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company has been able to make an enormous profit at the expense of the Australian consumers of tobacco. My object is to obtain for the Australian tobacco grower all the benefits that the British-Australasian Tobacco Company and its interests overseas are receiving from our tobacco trade. I am told that the imported tobacco is produced mostly by negroes and others employed at low wages. This industry, which is of considerable value to Australia, is at the mercy of the smoking community, but surely our smokers are broadminded enough to support an industry which is enabling many of our people to obtain a decent living. Rather than smoke an imported tobacco, grown and manufactured in Virginia or elsewhere in the United States of America, and obtainable here at 2s. a tin, I prefer to smoke Australian tobacco at the same price, secure in the knowledge that it is of local manufacture. Why should we send £2,000,000 out of this country annually in payment of imported tobacco when there is plenty of evidence before us, on behalf ‘ of both the growers and the manufacturers, to show that we can establish a thriving industry which will provide a decent living for a great number of our people? This industry can be used also as a side line for the wheat and the wool growers, particularly those who are earning a precarious living on small areas of land. By growing tobacco on some portion of their holdings, they can ensure to themselves an additional cheque at the end of the year. I cannot imagine why any one would be prepared to throw a wrench into the machinery that is being installed in this country with a view to protecting the Australian grower and consumer of tobacco. The evidence which honorable senators have before them is convincing, notwithstanding the report of the Tariff Board. I do not for one moment wish to decry the members of that board because of the nature of their report, but I believe that they could have extended their inquiries considerably. That has been conclusively shown during the debate. The members of the board are not in the same position as members of this chamber. “We are concerned, not with a bare article of produce and the competition which it receives from low-wage countries, but with the well-being of the people generally.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– When I suggested that the policy that we had adopted in regard to the sugar industry should now be extended to the tobacco-growing industry, I did not obtain any smiles from the Ministerial bench, but apart- altogether from the tobacco industry of Queensland, I should like to quote the opinion of the Australian Tobacco Growers Association, which has its office in Collins-street, Melbourne. That association states -

Growers’ organizations in the different States urge an embargo on foreign leaf until such time as the quality leaf in Australia is consumed.

That association therefore recommends something in the nature of the sugar policy. Mr. Birrell, who has been quoted by other Queensland senators, has urged that the manufacturers be compelled to use 30 per cent, of Australian leaf in all their blends, that tobacco should not be branded “ Mareeba “ when it contains none of that class of tobacco, and that an embargo should be placed upon importations. To impose an embargo is not by any means a new principle, because one already operates in respect of the sugar industry. The difference -of 93 per cent, in respect of the excise, as referred to by Senator Barnes, is tremendous, and his request is supported by the tobaccogrowers generally, through their association. That association has put before the Minister for Trade and Customs a number of alternative schemes based on the quantity of tobacco consumed in 1930-31. The suggested rate would yield a revenue of approximately £6,533,000, and the calculation will be seen in scheme 5 set out on page 27 of Tobacco, a publication which has been forwarded to me under separate cover. Scheme 5 provides for an import duty of 4s. 6d., and an excise duty of 3s., from which the revenue would be as follows: -

The article continues -

This scheme would give slightly less revenue under the existing duties, but it is considered the difference would be more than offset by the increased consumption of Australian tobacco as a result of the lower price for which it would be obtained. The scheme would not increase the price of imported tobacco. It would be simple to administer, and provide the revenue required. It would bc a fair and reasonable compromise between the 1931 duties and those now operating.

Several other alternative proposals’, which are, to some extent, in conformity with the request of Senator Barnes, have been submitted by the Australian Tobacco Growers Association to the Minister for Trade and Customs. I fail to understand why Senator Hardy should refuse to support this request.

Senator Hardy:

– I am not supporting it, because, if agreed to, it would increase the price of tobacco.

Senator MacDONALD:

– Go-getters were busy throughout Australia as a result of the exorbitant protection given to this industry by the Scullin Government’s tariff.

During this debate, we have heard a good deal of the tobacco grown in the Mareeba district of Queensland. Honorable senators appear to forget that Victoria is the State most deeply concerned with the duties on tobacco. That State has 13,000 acres under tobacco, compared with 5,800 acres in New South Wales, and 4,000 acres in Queensland. Moreover, more persons are engaged in the industry in Victoria than in either of the other two States that I have mentioned. Notwithstanding the importance of this industry to Victoria, I maintain that the present Government has treated the industry fairly. It is endeavouring to hold the scales evenly between the Treasury, which benefits from the duty on tobacco, and the smoking public which consumes the leaf. Taking all these things into consideration, the Government has, I submit, put forward a fair proposal.

Senator Hardy:

– In spite of the fact that it will obtain about £600.000 additional revenue.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Unlike income tax, the duty on tobacco is escapable: if a man chooses not to smoke, he need not contribute to the revenue by this means. That the honorable senator’s fears are not shared by those who arc most interested is’ shown by the increase in the area under tobacco. In 1931-32, the area planted was 21,309 acres, and in the following year, 25,600 acres. In those two years, the growers numbered 4,764 and 5,887, respectively. The Tariff Board was wise in that it looked ahead. It saw what was likely to happen if the boom was not checked. It realized that, in the long run, an unduly high measure of protection would recoil on those who grew tobacco, and, consequently, it . delivered a temperate judgment. The board has given us its guidance, and I, for one, am prepared to follow its lead.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I support the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes). It is better to deal with the tobaccogrowing industry in the way that he has suggested than to wait until the excise duties are before us. Senator Hardy, while opposed to increased import duties, favours a decrease of the excise duties. He did not, however, say to what extent he thought the excise duties should be reduced ; he merely suggested that they should be so altered as to provide the same, amount of revenue. Possibly, the Minister will be able to make the position clear. All governments look upon the duties on tobacco as a means of obtaining revenue. We, on this side, have no desire to increase the price of tobacco, but we believe that it would be well to increase the import duty from 3s. per lb. to 4s. 6d. per lb. When the Scullin Government imposed a duty of 5s. 2d. on foreign tobacco, it had in mind a gradual reduction of the duty - not the sudden drop from 5s. 2d. to 3s. per lb. which the present Government has made.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– Is the Labour party in favour of a general reduction of duties ?

Senator BROWN:

– The Labour party is in favour, of safeguarding the interests of the growers’ and the consumers of tobacco; it desires to see the tobaccogrowing industry in Australia established on a firm basis. For from 30 to 40 years, this industry has been struggling in Australia, because there has been no stability. In order to provide the necessary stability, a duty of 5s. 2d. per lb. on foreign tobacco was imposed. The growers of the tobacco leaf have not received fair prices for their product. Since 1932, the price of Australian tobacco leaf has fallen, notwithstanding that the profits of the manufacturing companies have increased. The

– Under a sane and rational social and economic system, those who are now middlemen would be engaged in useful work for the community.

HOUR OF MEETING

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[8.58]. - As many honorable senators’ have expressed a desire to witness the arrival of the British mail plane Astraea to-morrow morning, I move -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till to-morrow at 2.30 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2624

ADJOURNMENT

Parliamentary Economies: Report or Public SERVICE BOARD - Canberra Allowance : Married Officers - Allowances of Presiding Officers and Ministers - Development of Canberra.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[8.59]. - In accordance with my promise to afford honorable senators an opportunity to-day to discuss the statement which you, Mr. President, made on Friday last regarding the Public Service Board’s report on the services in Parliament House, I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [9.0].- I listened with very great interest and with much approval to the statement which you, Mr. President, were good enough to give the Senate on Friday last with reference to a report made recently by an officer of the Public Service Board relating to parliamentary expenditure.

Let me also say that I agree with most of the opinions to which you then gave utterance. Indeed, in some respects, I was prepared to go a little further than you aid. You spoke, first of all, of the relations existing between any government and the President and Speaker of the Senate and House of Representatives respectively. There has always been a great deal of discussion, amounting sometimes almost to collision, between governments whose habitat is the House of Representatives, and the presiding officers of the Parliament. But there have arisen few differences which have not been capable of adjustment by a spirit of sweet, reasonableness on the part of the Government and the presiding officers.

I said just now that I was prepared, in some respects, to go even further than you did on Friday last. In my view Parliament and the Government are two separate entities. When differences arise between a government and the Parliament, as represented by the President and Speaker, it seems to me that they can be adjusted only by reference to that body which creates both the President and Speaker, and the Ministry, that is, Parliament itself. It has become a habit of Treasurers, both Federal and State, to revise” the parliamentary estimates. That is not right. Estimates dealing with the cost of Parliament are the production of the President and Speaker, and may be altered only, I submit, by Parliament itself. This question has given rise to many disputes between the presiding officers and successive governments, and as the’ Government has the control of the purse and has the support of a majority in Parliament, it is, , consequently, able to exercise its authority, and, in the end, must conquer. But the parliamentary estimates- should be placed before Parliament untrammelled by any influence. I think this practice is observed in the majority of cases, although I have known of instances, not in this Parliament perhaps, hut in another of which I was a member for some years, in which Treasurers almost insisted on their right to criticize and alter, before their presentation to Parliament, the parliamentary estimates of expenditure as prepared by the presiding officers.

A great deal of the trouble that has arisen, if trouble there be that has not been rectified, has been due to the placing of the administration of Parliament on the same basis as that of the Public Service. No two occupations could be more unlike than that of the ordinary departmental public servants and that of officers of the Parliament. The latter are required, at times, to work long hours under heavy strain and without a rest, and when Parliament is in recess they find some recompense in a much needed spell, though this has not always been possible in recent years. I do not think that any one body can administer, or attempt to administer, any legislation or regulations under that legislation applying to departmental officers, but adapted and attached to the administration of Parliament. The proposal to do this has given rise, to a great extent, to the situation that has developed. It is too late to repair it. While some things, like the franchise, for example, can always be widened, great difficulty would be experienced in any attempt to restrict it. Parliamentary administration is, I suggest, one of them; so that perhaps I may be going outside the range of practical politics by mentioning it.

In relation to the appointment of an officer from the Public Service Board to inquire into certain matters within the purview of you, sir, and your colleague, Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that the scope of that investigation was very much widened from what was intended at the outset’. By whom it was thus widened I am unable to say. The fact that the report is, and rightly so, extremely confidential, leads me to believe that incursions have been made into matters which were not contemplated when the presiding officers sought from the Public Service Board that advice which is open to Parliament at any time it’ sees fit to avail itself of it. Let me say, also, that the length and ramifications of the investigation were somewhat astounding to me. From what you said, and also from what you omitted to say, I was led to believe that an attempt was being made not merely to regulate the details of work of parliamentary officers, but also to dictate the policy of Parlia ment. That, I suggest, is neither necessary, nor desirable. Of all institutions in the body corporate, Parliament itself can, and must, fix its own policy. I feel sure from what you said on Friday, that you agree with me on this point.

I was also glad to hear your declaration that you and Mr. Speaker had no intention of interfering with the conduct of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms, as was suggested by some newspaper writers, who, I imagine, were indulging in the popular journalistic pastime of kite flying. Knowing as you do that I, as your predecessor in the chair, took a particular interest in the administration of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms, you will realize with what relief I welcomed your statement on this subject. Indeed, I feel that, if there were interference with the refreshment rooms, both of us would have a very real grievance against those who were responsible for it. To show that those in authority have been dealing with this matter in a fairly satisfactory way, let me place before the Senate some figures which, by the courtesy of the officers of the Senate, I have been able to obtain. Let us take, first of all, the heart of Senate administration - the Senate Office. In 1930-31, the expenditure of the Senate Office was £11,922. In 1931-32- before the adoption of the Premiers plan - it was brought down to £9,429, a saving of £1,493. In 1932-33, the cost was further reduced to £8,991, a saving of £438 on the expenditure of the previous year, and for the current year the estimated expenditure is £8,855, or a total saving, in three years, of £2,067, representing an average saving of £698 a year. The same satisfactory position is disclosed in the figures relating to the expenditure of the Joint House Department, over which you, sir, preside. In 1929-30, the expenditure of that department was £23,141. In 1930-31, also before the initiation of the Premiers plan, it was reduced to £22,361, a saving of £780. In 1931-32 it was £18,920, a saving for that year of £3,441, and the estimates for the current financial year are £17,806, an estimated saving of £1,014. The total savings for the three years amount to £5,235, or an average saving of £1,745 a year.

With regard to the refreshment-rooms, which I regard as one of the necessary adjuncts of Parliament, the expenditure in 1929-30 was £7,047. In 1930-31- again before the Premiers plan was decided upon - it was reduced to £6,007, a saving of £1,040, and in 1931-32 it was down to £4,2S9, a further reduction of £1,718, the total saving for the three years being £2,758 or an average saving of £1,358 a year.

I doubt that even the most captious critic desiring to minimize the importance of these administrative economies, can find any fault with what has been done in the departments which I have mentioned. This is one reason why I was so glad to hear you say that you and your colleague would not countenance any attempt further to interfere with or abolish the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. Expenditure has been brought down to the limit at which it is no longer necessary to make a special grant in aid for the rooms. They live practically on what they earn, plus the salaries of the officers employed in them. They are as near to the point of paying their way as it is possible for any parliamentary refreshment rooms to get. Let me say also that it would be most undignified if the Federal Parliament, the legislature with the greatest amount of dignity to maintain, and the one which needs this convenience more than any other Parliament in Australia, should be the first to do away with it. If the rooms were abolished it would seriously detract from the dignity of this Parliament. It would also interfere with the proper performance of the duties of members, and altogether it would be an extremely bad example, just as the depression is, as I hope, lifting, to other parliaments in Australia, and to the world; because, after all, this Parliament come3 more in contact with the world at large than any other legislative body in Australia. Just as it is necessary for private individuals desiring to succeed in life to preserve a good appearance, so is it necessary for this Parliament not to show any signs of shabbiness, but without overdressing, if I may use that simile, to deport itself in a way that is in accord with its dignity and the place it occupies among the parliaments of the nations.

I noticed in one portion of your speech on Friday a statement which caused me to wonder somewhat. You said -

There are some good suggestions in the report, and some not so good. Effect has been given to some of them. With regard to others there is a fierce conflict of opinion.

I do not see how there can be conflict of opinion. The report was made, not for the guidance of yourself or Mr. Speaker, but merely for your information; there is only one opinion to be expressed, and that is the opinion that this Parliament will accord you and -Mr. Speaker the greatest trust and confidence. The opinion about which you say there might be conflict, cannot be attacked because it is the opinion of the elected representatives of the people in both Houses of this Parliament.

I wish now to say a few words relative to the proposition with regard to the Hansard staff. Very many people, especially those who have not taken an interest in the work of Hansard, do not understand the nature of this employment, and have an altogether erroneous idea about this body of men. A Hansard reporter has much more to do than merely write shorthand. We, all of us, and I, personally, for many years, have had a great deal for which to thank ‘Hansard. Years ago, I had a habit of entangling myself in’ a mesh of parentheses. T usually came out -without losing the thread of my remarks, but, in any case, it was the duty of the Hansard reporters to disentangle them.

Senator MacDonald:

– The use of parentheses is said to be the mark of a thoughtful mind.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– Exactly. I did not indulge in such self-flattery. I thought it was the mark of the sort of mind that tried to think several things at once - sometimes with bad effects alike to the speaker and his audience. There are many things that a Hansard reporter has to do. He has, in the first place, to understand allusions which are not always altogether applicable to the subject which they intended to adorn. He has, in the next place, to understand speeches which perhaps the members making them do not quite understand. I know one honorable gentleman who has repeatedly told me, after reading the Hansard proof of his speech, that he did not know that he had made such a good speech. Neither had he, as a matter of fact, although I did not tell him so. I have hoard it said that the particular politics of a. Hansard reporter could be ascertained by reading the report of the speech of the member in question. If a person is given a blank page, he can put what he likes upon it. He can illustrate it, and paint any colour that he likes upon it.

Senator Barnes:

– The Hansard reporters often need to know what a man is thinking.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– Yes ; they need to be psychologists and psycho-analysts - and they are. I have had experience of a good many Ilansard reporters, some, I may say, over many years in two legislatures, and I know of the good service that they render to this body of which we are members. I hope that nothing will be done to detract from their usefulness, and that we shall continue to keep a full record of the doings and sayings of Parliament, although the record may often be used to our disadvantage. I know that some members who have had a lengthy parliamentary career think that Hansards of more than three or four years old should be burnt by the public hangman or some other official of the sort. But that is only one view. The fact that the Hansard report is taken makes members of Parliament, in some cases at least, careful of what they say. On the other hand, it has a stimulating effect upon the length of the speeches of members - that, I suppose, is absolutely incurable. Perhaps I should say not the length, but the frequency of speeches. Hansard, in the past, has never had any difficulty in filling up the recesses with useful work. In these times, sessions seldom close - they are so long - but I do not suppose, that honorable senators ever think in the closing days of the session of the strain that is imposed upon these recording angels who take down every word that is said. The strain is very much greater upon them than it is upon us.

In the recesses there are also generally royal commissions at work, and in the days gone by there used to be parliamentary joint committees. The suspension of those committees is, in my opinion, a very great loss to this Parliament, fo”r the committees did wonderful work, not only in getting information for the use of Parliament, but also in educating and widening the minds of members, and in providing a greater percentage of members of this chamber and of another place with an opportunity to inform themselves about the country in which they live, the people who elected them to their high office, and the community .for which they are required to make laws. Their work was, I think, important to Parliament, and I hope that the time will not. be long before this method of obtaining information for Parliament, which is the cheapest of all methods, will be restored.

In conclusion, I thank you, Mr. President, for the statement which you were pleased to make to the Senate, and still more do I thank you for the wise decision’s which you and. . your colleague, Mr. Speaker, have corné to in respect to the various matters to which you alluded in your statement.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

. -I should not have risen to discuss this report - I should say statement, because having not seen the report we cannot discuss it - if it had not been for what seems to me to be a slight suspicion of body-line bowling in the manner in which the report has been dealt with. In the resume of the report which you submitted to honorable senators last Friday, which I, personally, was very glad to have, certain departments were dealt with. Obviously, other departments of the Parliament must also have been dealt with than those referred to. You, Sir, discussed the Hansard staff rather fully in indicating what might be done to utilize the services of the reporters during recesses. Surely some other sections of the parliamentary staffs must have been criticized in the report, sections which, possibly, are not as strenuously employed during sessions as are the Hansard staff, and which, probably, have no more to do in recesses. As we are situated in Parliament to-day, there is very little “ let-up “. Particularly was this so as we were situated during the years of the Scullin regime. But in this year of grace the members of the Hansard staff have been very busily and continuously employed since March, and when the Senate rises, as it is likely to do in two or three weeks’ time, the House of Representatives will probably be asked to sit again, so that these officers will have very little respite. With all due respect to you, Mr. President, it does not seem to be cricket to make one staff a sort of chopping block in order, perhaps, to save the face of other staffs, which were’ not mentioned in your speech. If the recommendations of the report in regard to the Hansard staff can be published, it seems to me that the recommendations in regard to the other staffs could also be revealed to honorable senators. If the report were placed upon the table of the Library honorable senators would be able to peruse it, but it would not be available to the press - if there is any reason why it should not be made so available.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If the report is laid upon the table of the Library it becomes available to the press.

Senator SAMPSON:

– I was not aware of that. When the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Public Works Committee were constituted, I understand that two additional reporters were appointed to the Hansard staff to report the proceedings of those committees. From my association with one of the committees, I know how busy the Hansard men were kept in reporting the proceedings of the committee. But now that both these committees have been suspended, Hansard is reverting to its former strength. I believe that the vacancy caused on -the staff by the retirement of our old and respected friend, Mr. Admans, has not been filled, and that there is a possibility that when the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr. Robinson, retires, that vacancy may be left unfilled. I suppose this would result in a saving of about £1,500 ; but I submit that the position in Canberra is very different from the position as it was in Melbourne. Since the transfer of the Seat of Government to Canberra, as you, sir, indicated in your statement, the situation has entirely altered. Parliament now sits much more intensively and for much longer periods than it sat in Melbourne. If Hansard is to do its work with a smaller staff, I consider, to use the vernacular, that it will have “ a -very rough spin “. In addition to reporting the proceedings of

Parliament, the members of the Hansard staff are required to report Premiers Conferences, royal commissions, parliamentary standing committees, and the like. I do not think that there . is any need to worry about keeping the staff in employment, because, though I am not a prophet, I believe that when the Commonwealth Grants Commission begins its work it will keep the Hansard staff busy for a good many years.

I think it would be fair, at any rate it would be appreciated, if honorable senators could be given an opportunity to peruse this report, even though it should not be made available to the press.

I should like briefly to discuss the effect of a Public Service regulation that was laid on the table of the Senate this afternoon, which; I understand, will affect seven or eight officers who come under the jurisdiction of yourself and Mr. Speaker. This regulation provides for a reduction of certain allowances to be paid to public servants in Canberra during 1933-34, and is to come into force on the 1st July next. The regulation provides that officers who were married prior to their transfer to Canberra are to suffer a reduction of the Canberra allowance from £26 to £13, and officers who have been married since their transfer to Canberra are to lose the whole of the £13 allowance at present received. Single men resident -in government hotels will still get the £13 allowance that they at present receive, but if . they go into residence elsewhere they will lose it. It will thus be seen that officers who have married sincethe transferto Canberra have not been treated as liberally as were those who had married previously.

Senator Rae:

– That was the reward for getting in early.

Senator SAMPSON:

– That may be; but, until these regulations were tabled to-day, those, men were at least on an equal footing with officers who are single. If this regulation is put into effect as it stands, the married officers to whom I have referred will receive no Canberra allowance, while the majority of the single officers will still be paid an allowance of £13 per’ annum. The majority of the officers who have married since the transfer was carried out are young men in receipt of comparatively low salaries, and the following table shows that they are already placed at a great disadvantage when compared with other married officers : -

Married men before transfer - 1931-32, £39; 1932- 33, £26 - a reduction of 33 per cent.; 1933- 34, £13 - ft further reduction of 33 per cent.

Married men since transfer - 1931-32, £26; 1932- 33, £13 - a reduction of 50 per cent; 1933- 34, nil - a further reduction of 50 peT cent.

Single men - 1931-32, £20, or quarter board, whichever greater; 1932-33, £13, or one-sixth board, whichever greater; 1933-34, £13-nc reduction.

There is a qualification that, in future, those single men must be resident at a government hotel. Apparently the idea is to compel these officers to stay at those institutions. It would be only reasonable if these young married officers were paid in future an amount equivalent to that which is received by other married officers, and by single officers who are resident at government hotels. That would partially compensate them for some of the loss from which they have been suffering for years without complaint, so far as I know. Incidentally, I understand that there are at least eight members of the staff over which you and Mr. Speaker preside who are concerned in this matter.

It is worth while considering the financial disadvantages which have been borne by men who have married since the transfer to Canberra’ was made, for each man has had to bear the whole cost of transporting his furniture here, also the fare for his wife. Frequently, because of the scarcity of housing accommodation, these officers have had to occupy houses at higher rentals than they could really afford, fo-r, in the majority of cases, they were young men, and, therefore, not highly salaried.

I thank you, sir, for the opportunity that you have given to honorable senators to discuss references in the report of the Public Service Board in respect of which you have taken us into your confidence, and even now, I cannot see why honorable senators should not see that document. However, that is a matter which is within your jurisdiction and judgment. It is difficult, nay impossible, adequately to discuss a report which one has not read; one can only try to piece together the aspects referred to by you, sir, on Friday afternoon. At the same time, I know that you are a most zealous guardian of the privileges of honorable senators, and feel sure that they may be safely entrusted to your keeping.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– The statement which you made on Friday, sir, came at a very opportune time. For quite a long time, it has been customary, and considered as quite the correct thing by some, to cry out about what has been termed the enormous expenditure incurred by this Parliament. The figures which you gave, supplemented by those of Senator Kingsmill, have shattered & myth that has been permitted to exist for too long a period. I should like to know whether it is possible to go just a little farther and give the Senate, and incidentally, the country, some information regarding the expenditure that is incurred in connexion with the honorable office which you occupy, together with the salaries and allowances made to Ministers in this chamber. I am confident that the facts would make it plain that, instead of there having been an ever-increasing snowball of expenditure since federation, great moderation has been displayed in connexion with those offices.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I join with Senator Sampson and Senator Carroll in thanking you, sir, for the lengthy and interesting statement which you made in connexion with the Pinner report. You certainly removed possible misunderstandings which might have caused great dissatisfaction to my colleagues and myself. I have had experience of a number of Parliaments, and’ I consider that, generally speaking, very little of the criticism which one hears outside is justified. I shall refer to a small privilege that is accorded to honorable senators, that of dining in the parliamentary refreshment-rooms, for which the charge is 2s. That does not bear favorable comparison with the charge made in hotels in the cities, because for the same sum, one could dine a la carte. and obtain a much wider range of viands. I have visited a number of State Parliaments and dined there, either in the members’ room as a guest, or in the visitors’ dining room, in the capacity of a reporter.

Honorable senators enjoy the privilege of using the dining-rooms in the various State Parliaments. In this and other Parliaments strangers are served in the dining-rooms with quite as good meals as are served to members. The impression widely held outside that we get our meals here for nothing should be dispelled, as also the idea that we get anything very wonderful in the way of meals. The only luxury we enjoy, so far as I know, is free billiards. We might have to pay ls. for 50 up if we went down the street to a billiard saloon, and if we belonged to a club which afforded us the same comforts as the Senate club rooms do, we should have to pay something in the way of membership fees. Generally speaking, however, there is no extravagance in the running of this Parliament to cause anyone anxiety. As a Labour representative, I should not take this stand if I believed that the. public was being called upon to pay for anything in the nature of high living by members of Parliament.

Senator BROWN:

– There is nothing for nothing here.

Senator MacDONALD:

– That is so, except, perhaps, our 50 up at billiards. I have not noticed any poker schools or bridge parties since ‘ I have been here. Honorable senators stick closely to their chamber duties.

Reference is made in the report of the officer of the Public Service Board to the parliamentary staff. Because of what has been said and written on that subject, I should like very much to see the report. I believe that, if it could be made available to honorable senators, all of them would treat it as confidential. I am a democratic representative, and inclined to look with suspicion on any attempt to invest parliamentary institutions with excessive dignity, but I believe that the parliamentary staffs must necessarily be possessed of special qualifications which merit consideration. Most of them have been brought to Canberra from Sydney or Melbourne, and if this proposal for getting rid of excess officers were put into effect, it would be hard for them to find employment elsewhere. I was pleased to . learn that the excess officers were to be absorbed, and that nobody would, as a result of this search for unnecessary economy, be put out of employment. I hope that before any such action is taken the matter will be brought before Parliament.

I have no special knowledge of the work performed by the clerical officers of Parliament, but before sitting down, 1 should like to make some reference to the Hansard staff. There are, I think, other members of this chamber who have had experience of journalistic work, and, personally, I can speak with some authority in regard to it. I have myself done a good deal of shorthand writing, and know” something of the qualifications of Hansard reporters. Among journalists the job of a Hansard writer is regarded as very strenuous. I have undertaken practically all branches of journalistic work, and was for ten years editor of a daily newspaper, but I must confess to having always been scared at the prospect of taking a verbatim note of proceedings, yet that is the Hansard reporters’ everyday job. Verbatim reporting is most difficult and exacting work, and men capable of doing it must be endowed with minds of a special kind. It is said very few of even the most capable journalists are able to write shorthand at the rate of 150 words a minute, yet Hansard reporters are required to write at 200 words a minute, and I know some of them who can take a speech at an even faster rate. Nol; only must Hansard reporters be specialists in stenography,, but they must also be highly-trained sub-editors. As Senator Kingsmill pointed out, theirs is frequently the ‘ task of re-making our speeches by straightening out our long asides and parenthetical observations so as to put them into a straightforward literary style. Besides that, they must be equipped with wide general knowledge. When I first began public reporting, it was soon borne in upon me that, to do the job efficiently, it was necessary for me to be an Oxford dictionary and a Webster’s dictionary rolled into one, with a very considerable acquaintance with the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Particularly in the old days, when speakers were apt to be more oratorical and florid than they are now, they sometimes sprinkled their utterances with* quotations from Horace, from the Bible, and from the classics, ancient and modern; and the shorthand writer felt that he was in honour bound to keep up.

Even now Senator Brennan sometimes adorns his speeches with a little more than the1 familiar Latin tag3, and 1 do not know how the Hansard men get them, in the circumstances, I should be tempted to ask him how to spell the words, but I do not know whether the Hansard reporters adopt a similar course.

One of the recommendations of the Pinner report, in which considerable pride seems to be taken, is the proposal to save £1,000 a year by using the services of Hansard reporters in the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. I believe it is a fact that the Hansard staff has been available for this work for the last two years. It has always been available for reporting royal commissions and inquiries. I should like to see the report if only to be able to gauge exactly the nature of the work the staff is called upon to do. Since February, this Parliament has been sitting practically all the lime, and, after a spell of six weeks, it will go on sitting practically up to Christmas.

I was glad to learn that, notwithstanding newspaper articles to the contrary, nothing very drastic is contemplated in the way of re-organization. It has been made evident that the work of the Parliament is being carried on with reasonable efficiency and economy. Expenditure has already been cut down, and any further action in that direction would be merely a cowardly yielding to a public clamour that is not well-founded.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

.- I am not going to follow the example of previous speakers by paying flattering compliments to yourself, Mr. President. We are, I think, all agreed upon the point that, if a report were necessary the proper action was taken to get it, namely, to have a detailed report made by a competent authority. I shall be surprised if it is deemed that we are bound by all the recommendations contained in that report. I sincerely trust that that is not the case. I wish to criticize the report on the ground of the inability of Mr. Pinner to deal with a matter of this nature. He may be a genius in ability, or an angel in character, but 1 fail to see that his position in the Public Service gave him any claim to ability to sit in judgment, for instance, on the Hansard staff. I refer particularly to this matter, because, while other hon orable senators have mildly criticized the proposal made with regard to this staff, and have lavished praise on the Hansard reporters, I wish to enter the strongest possible protest against the treatment that it was proposed should be meted out to them. Senator Kingsmill, your predecessor in the chair, Mr. President, referred to the wisdom of upholding the dignity of this Parliament, especially as it is representative of the nation as a whole ; but it would scarcely be upholding that dignity to make a cut in the salaries of parliamentary officers. Such cheeseparing economy as an attempt to reduce the cost of the Hansard staff by putting other officers out of work, arid requiring the Hansard reporters to undertake extra duties seems wholly unwarranted. Even though we have no public works committee or public accounts committee in active operation at the present time, royal commissions and other bodies of a semi-parliamentary origin provide work for the Hansard reporters during recess. We should consider more than the actual number of hours for which these officers are employed during long and arduous sessions ; we should also remember that the strain imposed upon them is quite outside the experience of members of Parliament. Every honorable senator is responsible for his own speech only; but the Hansard reporters are engaged during the whole of the time when the Parliament i3 sitting. I do not know exactly how the whole of their time is occupied during parliamentary recesses, yet I am aware that the Hansard proof numbers which members receive have to be finally revised and indexed in order to be prepared for publication in the bound volumes. In my opinion, the strain imposed on this staff during a long session is such that if, during any period, its members are entirely free from work, they are entitled to that freedom. I have been informed that in both the New South Wales and Queensland Parliaments, the Hansard reporters receive higher salaries than those paid to members of the Commonwealth staff. If they are to be given other work during recesses on the ground that they have nothing else to do, they should have regular hours during the sessions. Frequently, they are called upon to work exceedingly long hours, and if they are not to have the benefit of the recesses, they should be employed in shifts, and paid overtime if required to work for more than a given number of hours. I do not think that it would be giving these officers a fair deal to require them to toil through a lengthy and tiring session, and then to submit to some other drudgery during the recess. Their work is not merely mechanical; it demands the exercise of skill to a high degree. These officers should be allowed periods for recuperation from time to time, to keep them fit for their task.

– That is an unfair interjection. While I am speaking the Hansard staff- obtains, not only work, but also education, and that is more thancan be said of the honorable senator when he is edifying this chamber with his eloquence.

I object also to the continual belittling of Canberra, and to the talk that there is no opportunity here for a career for children. It is our fault that there are no careers offering for children. One of the noblest ideals ever conceived in the mind of man was the building of this capital city and the conducting of the affairs of the National Parliament here. Had successive governments not been obsessed with the insane policy of deflation and increasing misery, they would have transferred every public servant that could be transferred - there are some required in the other cities - to the Federal Capital city as fast as accommodation could be provided for them. In that way this city could have been rapidly and satisfactorily developed, and with its growth there would have been no dearth of employment for the children. Today we have been discussing the development of industries-, but no industry jumps from its commencement to maturity. Therefore, some difficulties must have been anticipated in respect of ‘ the satisfactory development of this national capital. Many difficulties that do exist here are of our own creation. We persuaded people to come to Canberra and to become lessees of business and other sites on the understanding that the population would increase. We have not fulfilled our part of the contract. We have let down, not only those lessees, but also the public servants who have children, because they anticipated conditions entirely different from those which they actually experienced. It is our duty, not to wring our hands bewailing the position, but to insist upon a policy of continual development of this national capital. What is behind our attitude? We have been so badly educated, and become so accustomed to the bright lights of the cities - mostly it means the seamy side of life - that when we come to Canberra, and are free of the frightful grafters of the big cities - because it is inconvenient for them to come here to do the dirty work that they do in Sydney and Melbourne - we rush away within twenty minutes of the adjournment of the House; and then we expect the public servants to believe that we have placed them in a veritable’ paradise. We talk about the dignity of Parliament, and then we scuttle out of Canberra as fast as we can, and tell the public servants that they should be happy here. ,

With regard to the regulations which have been tabled during the day, and about which most of us know nothing whatever, we, on this side of the chamber, do not stand for the whittling away of the rights of public servants, or for the continual onslaught on their wages, allowances and privileges, because those things are part of the policy of this Government in bringing about the general degradation of the whole of the community. It is time that we called a halt. Just what power this Senate has in respect of these regulations, I do not know, but I think that it should avail itself of every opportunity to protest in no uncertain way against the whittling away of the salaries and allowances of public servants. In conclusion, let me say that I believe in efficiency, and in paying salaries commensurate with the efficiency that we need. If we are not getting the efficiency for which we are paying, we should dismiss those who are inefficient. We cannot justly demand efficiency unless we are prepared to pay for it. Unless we are prepared to provide fair salaries and reasonable conditions, it is only hypocritical for us to talk of the good service rendered by those whom we employ. I have found the parliamentary staff entirely satisfactory, and I see no need for any control of it other than that which already is vested in the Presiding Officers. I think that the whole business of obtaining a report from an outsider has been puerile and undignified. It would appear that too much notice has been taken of statements in the press, and that we doubt our ability to do the job which we have been sent here to do. If we have confidence in ourselves, and in our capacity to do our work, we need not be afraid of either the electors or the press; nor need we run around trying to conceal our feelings. While I cannot see that much good can come from to-night’s discussion, I am grateful to you, sir, for having distributed to honor-, able senators copies of your speech. It may be that some honorable senators have found in this discussion a safety valve in that it has given them the opportunity to say things which have been on their mind.

Should Mr. Pinner’s report be made public, would any self-respecting public servant in the future undertake a similar inquiry, and furnish a report on his investigations? An officer employed on such a task is expected to be impartial, and to give to the Presiding Officers - and to no one else- the benefit of his opinion, although it might be well perhaps if the House Committee were taken into the confidence of the Presiding Officers. In my opinion, it would be wrong to the man who submitted the report, as well as to others, to make the report public, and, as I have said, it’ would make any one unwilling to undertake a similarly unpleasant task in the future.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.24]. - I join with those who thank you, sir, for the statement of your views on the report presented to the Presiding Officers by Mr. Pinner. I have listened to the debate with some interest; but I cannot find myself in agreement with Senator Kingmill’s references to the Estimates of Parliament. It is true that the Presiding Officers are responsible for the preparation of those Estimates; but I do not think that any parliament would say that they should have the last word regarding such Estimates, any more than they would agree that a Minister should have the last word regarding the Estimates of the departments under his control. Obviously, the Estimates of all the departments must be brought together into one general financial statement dealing with the revenue and expenditure of the country as a whole. Were the President and Mr. Speaker a law unto themselves, and their Estimates not subject to the same rule that applied to the other departments, there would be a lack of harmony between the salaries and conditions of the officers of the Parliament and those of public servants in the other departments. In one case, there might be the most rigid parsimony, amounting to meanness, and, in the other, gross extravagance. There must be some reconciliation of the expenditure of all departments, and that can only be obtained by the Treasurer scrutinizing the whole of the departmental Estimates. He is responsible to Parliament for the budget. The British Constitution, contains many things which are illogical, but common sense makes it possible to deal with them amicably. Similarly, we have been fortunate in that succeeding Presiding Officers and Treasurers have, by the exercise of common sense, been able to reconcile their differences.

There is a good deal of misconception regarding the Canberra allowance. I was a member of the government which granted that allowance in the first instance, and at the time it was publicly stated that it was a temporary allowance to meet the conditions which obtained while Canberra was in the making.

Senator Sampson:

– Is not Canberra still in the making?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Yes; but conditions are very different from what they were when the allowance was first granted. Public servants in Canberra are not a class to themselves, but a part of a Service which spreads over the Commonwealth. It is the duty of the Public Service Board and the Government to try to dispense justice equally to all sections of public servants, whether in Canberra, Broome, Cape York or elsewhere. The provision of an allowance to meet the higher cost of living in certain districts is not universal throughout the Service; it was an exception made in the case of Canberra. If the allowance is to be permanent, why confine it to the capital city; why not have an equalization fund which takes into account the cost of living in various parts of the Commonwealth? Public servants in Canberra have no right to ask for something that other public servants do not get. The Canberra allowance was a temporary grant to overcome temporary difficulties which existed in the early days of this city.

Senator Collings:

– In Queensland there are different zones, and, according to the cost of living in those zones, so is the cost-of-living allowance graduated.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.There is something to be said for such a system; but it does not apply to the Commonwealth Public Service. The payment of a cost-of-living allowance such as the Canberra allowance is not a rule throughout the Service.

Senator Collings:

– It ought to be.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I ask honorable senators to consider what the position of these public servants would have been had they remained in Melbourne or Sydney. In that case, they would not only have been subject to the reduction which has fallen on them in common with public servants throughout the Commonwealth, but would also have had to pay State taxation, from which they are exempt in Canberra. The public servants in the Federal Capital Territory are the only members of the Commonwealth Public Service who do not pay State taxation. The lowest-paid Commonwealth public servants in New

South. “Wales pay unemployment tax to the State Government, whereas a public servant with the same salary who lives in Canberra does not. An employee of the Postal Department in Queanbeyan pays that tax; his fellow employee in the Canberra Post Office does not. When these things are taken into consideration, it will be seen that there is something to be said for the reduction of the Canberra allowance. I understood Senator Sampson to object, not to the reduction of the allowance itself, but to inequalities associated with it. I did not know that this subject would be raised to-night, and I am, therefore, not in a position to say whether or not such inequalities exist. That is a matter which might be discussed when the budget proposals are before us.

Senator Carroll:

asked for information regarding the salaries of’ the presiding officers and Ministers. Those salaries have been reduced to a greater extent than those of any other public servant, with possibly two or three exceptions. The total reduction has been 30 per cent., and I have been told by one Minister that, having regard to the diminished purchasing power of the fi, these salaries are lower to-day than at any other time in the history of federation.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. lynch). - I desire to say a few words regarding some points upon which there seems to be some misapprehension. I was pleased to hear my predecessor (Senator Kingsmill) emphasize the need that still exists for preserving to the full the rights and privileges of honorable senators. Merely on the basis of my statement in the Senate on Friday last, comment has been made in the newspapers regarding the privileges of members of this Parliament, and there is a suggestion that they are receiving emoluments and benefits in excess of their deserts. I have said many times in the past, and I repeat now, that the surest way to bring about the downfall of parliamentary government is by disparaging it without warrant, and holding up to public contempt those associated with it. Down the misty ages parliamentary institutions have been gradually evolved as the result of constant warfare and sacrifice. Throughout the world to-day those institutions are on their trial, and are in danger of abolition; and any man who deliberately lowers politicians and other public men in the eyes of the people is, wittingly or unwittingly, paving the way for. the destruction of the most glorious system pf social control that the mind of man has yet conceived. The men who are serving the nation, in the legislature .and elsewhere in public life, are doing infinitely more valuable and patriotic work than pharisaical critics who, from cosy armchairs, point the finger of scorn at representative institutions and ‘ those connected with them. No position which is constantly the subject of ridicule will attract men of worth and virtue. With rare exceptions, the standard of public life in Australia has been kept very high, and those who would lower it would be false friends to this country. I feel that I am entitled to repeat these sentiments, because advantage has been taken of a small incident to find fault with this Parliament, and to accuse its members of incurring or approving excessive expenditure for their own advantage: I have already pointed out - and I think the truth of it will be obvious to the humblest intelligence - that a parliament suddenly removed from a big centre of population to an entirely new seat of government at an isolated spot in the interior, cannot be expected to operate as economically and, in some respects, as advantageously, as could a parliament functioning in Sydney or Melbourne. Those of us who have had experience of life know that, when a man transfers from a populous community to the wilderness, he not only leaves behind him most of the amenities of civilization, but also incurs extra cost and disabilities. In all pioneering settlements the cost of living is increased by the constant handicaps incidental to isolation. Therefore, when the Commonwealth Parliament was removed from a big centre. of population to Canberra, it had to incur certain increased expenditure, which was consequential and unavoidable.

Regarding the Hansard staff, and Mr. Pinner’s comments thereon, I do not propose to say at present more than that I am glad to be associated with the words of praise that have been uttered regarding the services rendered by these officials, who are giving of their best to maintain the highest traditions of this Parliament.

Reference has been made to the confidential nature of Mr. Pinner’s report, and I was puzzled to know what Senator Sampson meant when he referred to the “ body-line method “ of handling this document. Although I am not a cricket expert, I understand that the body-line attack is regarded in two ways - by the British with approval, and by the Australians with disapproval. Was Senator Sampson applying the phrase “ bodyline “ from the British angle or the Australian angle? At all events, it seems that in the sphere of cricket the dispute regarding “ body-line “ tactics is likely to be amicably settled, and I hope for a similar development in regard to this report.

Senator Collings said that the House Committee should have accepted the responsibility of any necessary reorganization of the services in this building, and thus obviated the employment of an external investigator. Having been a member of the House Committee, and other committees, for some time, and being aware of the considerable amount of useful work they perform, I would hesitate to add further to their responsibilities. Both the House Committee and the Library Committee have ample work to do in their own particular spheres, without being further burdened with the onerous and complicated task discharged by Mr. Pinner.

With regard to the query made by Senator Carroll about the salaries enjoyed by Ministers, and the present occupant of this chair, we have heard what the right honorable the Leader of the ‘Senate (Senator Pearce) had to say about ministerial emoluments, and what I have to say in respect of my salary as President of the Senate is this: I am receiving the same remuneration as that paid to the occupant of the chair 32 years ago, and I may add that, in recent years, the occupants of this position have been called upon to pay both Federal and State income tax, which was not the case 32 years ago, so that the effective salary is considerably less. It is just as well that these facts should be made known so that the public may judge whether criticism is justified or otherwise.

As to the so-called confidential nature of the Pinner report, I remind the Senate that this expedient of obtaining reports of this nature concerning government departments and administration has been resorted to on many occasions. Personally, I should always prefer a public investigation and a public report, because I am well aware that, when confidential reports are mentioned, there is, sometimes, a suspicion that they may contain ‘ something that is unfair or unjust to some one. But I would like to disabuse the minds of any honorable senators who may hold this view with regard to the Pinner report, and would again emphasize that the obtaining of confidential reports is part of the routine of the Public Service. That we have not heard so much of this side of public administration I attribute to the fact that, in recent years, honorable senators and members of another place have had so much else to engage their attention, and to remember. I hold in my hand certain volumes containing decisions upon confidential reports, which have been tendered from time to time, and those - decisions have never been questioned by Parliament, although they may have been influenced by the production of the reports. Such a well-known authority as the late Mr. Justice Higgins, on one occasion, in the Federal Arbitration Court, was asked to make public a confidential report which, it was contended, was prejudicial to the interests of certain employees whose case was before the court. Mr. Justice Higgins, after hearing arguments . in support of, and against, the request, declined to order the report in question to be made public, and made his award, which was observed by the parties to it for some years without demur. It might have been argued that Mr. Justice Higgins exceeded his authority in making an award that might be affected by the contents of a confidential report, but the procedure followed on that occasion was so much a matter of course that no one thought of disturbing it. These records also contain references to similar action by other Commonwealth authorities. In regard to the point taken by Senator Collings, Mr. Atlec Hunt, when Public Service Arbitrator, laid special emphasis on the necessity for adhering to the practice of obtaining confidential reports, declaring that no Public Service investigator would be candid and courageous enough to present a report if he thought that, afterwards, it would be made public. Many similar instances could be cited. The obtaining of confidential reports does not necessarily mean that injury is going to be visited on some unfortunate citizen.Far from it. Always, when a confidential report is obtained concerning individual officers of the Public Service, those concerned have ample opportunity to state their case, and combat any statement contained in it. That is exactly what we are doing in thisinstance. Wo are asking the responsible officer of each department of ‘the Parliament to have, a talk with Mr. Speaker and myself, to discover wherein lies the strength of his case as against views which may be contained in the Pinner report. To speak of that document as a confidential report hardly expresses our ideas. It is simply a report tendered to the Presiding Officers. For the present, it is not going to be made public; it isbeing used as a guide coming from, one source that may be combated by confidential reports on the other side. We arc weighing the relative merits of the reports made by the responsible officers of the various departments, and the suggestions contained in the Pinner Report. As far as the undetermined portions of that document are concerned, we arc not going to take action for the present. That is the whole essence of this so-called confidential report. Senator Collings observed that, despite the investigation made by the officer in question, things are going on just the same. I am putting it to the Senate that we are trying to effect savings in administration. When the budget and Estimates are under consideration, honorable senators will have an opportunity to make full inquiries to ascertain whether effect is being given to the recommendations made, or whether they are being disregarded.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senateadjourned at 10.49a.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 June 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1933/19330627_senate_13_140/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate27 June 1933

PAPERS

LICENSING PROSECUTION

Senator McLACHLAN:Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

QUESTION

SURPLUS MILITARY CLOTHING

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

CANBERRA ALLOWANCE

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF PEANUTS

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

Senator McLACHLAN:UAP

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator McLACHLAN:

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Perfumery, Petroleum Jelly, Toilet Preparations

Steering Dampers

PARLIAMENTARY ECONOMIES

Public Service Board’s Report

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Senator DUNN:through Senator Rae

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator O’HALLORAN:through Senator Barnes

QUESTION

COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLACHLAN:UAP

QUESTION

WORLD’S WHEAT SUPPLY

Senator DUNN:through Senator Rae

Senator McLACHLAN:UAP

CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933

Schedule

Senator BARNES:Victoria

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator BARNES:

Senator MacDonald:

Senator BARNES:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator MCLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator Hardy:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Barnes:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator BARNES:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator Collings:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator HARDY:New South Wales

Senator McLachlan:

Senator HARDY:

Senator BROWN:Queensland

Senator McLachlan:

Senator BROWN:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator COLLINGS:Queensland

Senator BRENNAN:VICTORIA

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Reid:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator Reid:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator CRAWFORD:Queensland

Senator Hardy:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Hardy:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Foll:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senate
27 June 1933

Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Rae

Senator O’HALLORAN:
through Senator Barnes

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Rae

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator BRENNAN:
VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP